By LUÍS FELIPE SOUZA*
Abandoning the project of egoistic entrepreneurship to focus on the decentralization of the subject as a way of warning about the impasses underlying the structuring of social life
There is no such thing as a “critical organizational psychology.” At least, that is not what is studied hegemonically. The social sciences produce critiques about the determinants that structure societies, which exposes the contradictions of social violence. A subject that has a permanent seat in psychological studies due to its help in capturing the phenomena of the individual-society intersection, the social sciences are removed from the center of the discussion of organizational psychology.
This is because, as Vladimir Safatle (2020) points out, this area of psychology recognizes the individual as a business enterprise whose purpose is to increase profit margins and reduce fixed costs. For the subject, this objective becomes the task of achieving a mature character, a centered personality and seriousness in conduct.
It is not difficult to see the accuracy of the diagnosis made by Vladimir Safatle (2020), after all, the subjects of organizational psychology that value conflict resolution and the creation of effective leadership, for example, involve the prescription of steps behavioral. The primer that predicts the creation of centered and powerful leaders, therefore, neutralizes the spontaneously critical content of the affects through mechanisms of a mature character that can be synthesized in the docility of nonviolent communication.
This is not, of course, an apology for the absence of ethics in the workplace, but rather an acknowledgement of the annihilation of the potential for denunciation contained in emotions. Campello (2022) demonstrates that these same emotions are tools of social criticism, and are even useful for identifying situations of injustice, allowing even the sharing of the feeling of being wronged.
The understanding of affections as an enterprise, as Safatle (2020) shows us, is inserted in the context of the advent of neoliberalism, in the mid-1980s. It was at this time that studies in organizational psychology focused on the affections of individuals in organizations were deepened. Providing happiness and satisfaction to workers was at the center of studies after the collapse of the Taylorist experiments. It was seen that the fragmentation and excessive speed of work rhythms were creating exhausted workers who were poorly motivated to perform their work.
In their place, we have the Swedish and Norwegian experiences of work groups with their control circles, whose motto was the horizontalization of work and the reduction of hierarchy, as in the example of the Volvo factories. Despite the failure of these experiences over the years, the world of work was able to understand that a happy worker could produce more. This understanding goes hand in hand with the period of massive implementation of flexible work, especially in the context of teleworking, the exclusion of rights and outsourcing.
So many changes find their justification for existing in scientific studies about motivation, levels of commitment and emotional intelligence. After all, Antunes (2009) recalls from sociology reminders that science is not subordinate to collective well-being — if that were the case, we would not be fighting against the precariousness of work and the deprivation of basic rights to workers if we have technological levels that could put an end to precarious and poorly paid work. On the contrary, science is free to serve the market that finances it.
One of the theoretical constructs that has received the most emphasis in organizational psychology studies is emotional intelligence. The construct created by Salovey and Mayer (1990) is a skill through which the subject can be more functional in their social and personal relationships with themselves. It is the skill to monitor one's own emotions and the emotions of others in order to use them to discriminate and choose the best forms of thought and action. This ability allows for the regulation and correct and coherent use of emotions.
Therefore, in order for the individual to be able to present more positive characteristics and better cultivate their relationships, they need to develop the ability to perceive and control their emotions. These attributes are the predicate of the individual sought after in our current working world: a proactive and astute employee, who supports the organization and does not care about the difficulties of the working conditions, since their determination overcomes any negative emotions they may feel.
It is therefore easy to see how the critical capacity that underlies the affects is tamed through silence. The worker is advised to channel his negative affects so as not to disturb the magnanimous work environment. Safatle (2020) is perceptive in perceiving the mechanism through which the result of the foreclosure of affects serves neoliberalism.
Emotional silencing encourages the absence of revolts against the social violence perpetrated by capital. It is an effective way to avoid large-scale strike demonstrations to demand workers' rights. After all, a good worker is one who is committed to his work, a restrained person who does not allow himself to be overcome by the anger of precarious employment. Even the principles of decent work are rendered impotent due to the subordination of work to the supremacy of capital.
Finally, we ask ourselves: is it possible to find a humanized meaning in the science of organizational psychology? Yes, but a radical change in the course of psychological studies in organizations is necessary. On the part of companies, the emphasis must be on creating mechanisms that guarantee reciprocal relationships between the organization and the worker.
On the other hand, academia would need to recognize the legitimate potential for demands contained in the profusion of affections, not conceiving them as the ravings of a disturbed and unintelligent soul. After all, the docility of affections does not protest in situations of injustice, much less produce texts like the one presented here.
From such deviations, psychological science applied to companies could escape from the exercises of Mindfulness that aim to appease the manifestations of symptoms. Such symptoms serve as informants of latent messages revolting against excessive demand, as in cases of exhaustion of the burnout. It would therefore be a matter of abandoning the project of egoistic entrepreneurship to focus on the decentralization of the subject as a way of warning about the impasses underlying the structuring of social life.
*Luís Felipe Souza is a master's student in work psychology at the University of Coimbra.
References
Antunes, R. (2009). The meanings of work: Essay on the affirmation and denial of work. Boitempo.
Campello, F. (2022). Critique of affects. Authentic.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9 https://doi.org/10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG
Safatle, V. (2020). Economics is the continuation of psychology by other means: psychic suffering and neoliberalism as a moral economy. In V. Safatle, N. da S. Júnior, & C. Dunker (Eds.), Neoliberalism as a management of psychic suffering (pp. 11- 38). Authentic.
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
